Emily Jones

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

I'm a bit sad as i find that so many AIO Soda Shop Board Members look down on Emily. She is charming and wonderful. The very things so many despise about her are the things that make her amazing: her passion, her boldness, her incredible natural talent for knowledge and deduction, her forcefulness, yes, even her rudeness. Can we frown on her for being unusually naturally talented? Would you slap Mozart on the wrist and say it's ridiculous to be composing music as a little child? Emily is all that a woman should be, and possibly the best role-model of all the female characters in the show today. YES, she is forceful. YES, she outspoken. YES, she speaks her mind. And that is what a female should be. Women need to know that there's a power in them, that they can speak out, that they can be whoever they want to be. Emily is the best of the new child characters, and will always have a special place in my heart. I cannot say it passionately enough. Thank you, AIO, for Emily Jones.

Pound Foolish, you say that she's forceful, and that she is all that a woman should be. However, the man is supposed to be the head of the house, and though the woman should be treated fairly, she should be somewhat subject to the man. In the way that Emily treats Matthew, if she treated her husband like that, that would be defying God's
commandment.

I agree, Judge. Pound Foolish, I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Emily is obnoxious and annoying!

[Pound Foolish]

"I don't like her." "Emily is obnoxious and annoying." Well argued. Very well argued. So clever, 101. I see your point. Thank you, I see the light. (Boy, talk about being sarcastic.) Thank you for agreeing with me, Katerina! As for you, Judge... YOUR A MALE CHAUVINIST PIG!!! Actually, your arguments are very complicated and nicely put, Judge, have a lot of substance, and I cannot fully refute them without writing an essay. But, briefly... Biblically speaking, there's no reason to assume women are under zero obligation to submit to their husbands, except in the old testament, and many of the ideas then are unreliable today. For instance, permanent divorce, in the New Testament, is declared wrong. That said, sometimes, that is the best way for the household to function, but not necessarily. Finally, I agree with you to a SLIGHT degree: if Emily and Matthew married, they would be having a poor marriage, as Emily nearly always fights to the top. If they ever marry, she'll have to learn to not always have her way with Matthew. Until that fateful day...

-- Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:58 pm --

*edit: Biblically speaking ,women are under zero obligation to submit to their husbands, except in the Old Testament... (Not: there's no reason to assume women are under zero obligation to submit to their husbands...)

[Tea Ess]

Sorry for another rebuttal, but I completely disagree. First off, Ephesians 5 says:
You discovered the next hint! What kind of game do African mammals and Antarctic birds play?

"Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, 23 for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. 27 He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 since we are members of His body."

Our pastor recently gave a series of sermons on marriage. One of the greated needs of men is to be respected by their wives. One of the greatest needs of women is to be loved and cherished. These verses command us to give these things to our partners for life.

Secondly, C.S. Lewis gives an excellent opinion on this in his book Mere Christianity. Basically, his first point is that in Marriage, there must be a head for the final decision making.

"if there must be a head, why the man? ... The relations of the family to the outer world, must depend, in the last resort, upon the man. A woman is primarily fighting for her own husband and children against rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask you a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress?..."

So, back to Emily. I would enjoy her, her passion- her talent, her excitable personality- if it weren't for one thing- her unrealisticness. That is my main issue with her: she is not real. AiO has created many unusual characters, but they have always had a spark of true humanness in them, that no matter how preposterous the situation, we could see, for that 30 min episode, a small piece of their being in ourselves, and it is this which enables us to relate to their character. Emily has no spark. Some people, like you, have a unique ability to envision past Emily's obtrusive nature, and into her raw being, but I do not, and neither do many other listeners. Emily is always so uptight, overbearing, and has that little glitch in her voice that makes her a cartoon character rather than a raw human being that we may relate to. Now, I am not saying she is a bad character, or one who should be removed, but she is a disturbing one. AiO has tried so hard to use her to create interesting plots that they forget that she is a true human to contend with. Emily needs a good dose of reality, to know that she is not the center of the universe. Her detecting talent is also disturbing. She is far too random in her conclusions, and seems to drift between the clichéd and the preposterous. If AiO could make her work for her skills a little more, and have her explain the mystery solving process more, then she would be an enjoyable character.

[The Old Judge]

Good job, as always, T.S. And Pound Foolish, don't EVER say anything like that about me again.

[Pound Foolish]

Yay! I hoped this remark would get your attention, TS! Hooray, hooray! Let us take up arms against each other yet again, my dear enemy, and my the fight be long and dark. I enjoy your posts so much, I can't help but be thrilled when I attract your attention. Okay, now on to your highly excellent arguments...
Big goof, on my part. I clean forgot that verse is in the New Testament. First, lets take the Ephesians verse at face value, as you seem to be doing. The Webster Dictionary defines "subordinate" as:
1. Placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position: Inferior
2. Submissive to or controlled by authority
Thus, assuming you do not mean the first option You are saying a woman must be always controlled "in all things', as the verse says, by her husband. In that case, she would have to raise the children the way her husband says, vote the way her husband says, eat what her husband says to eat for lunch... Have you ever seen this done in practice? Obviously, the verse doesn't mean exactly what it says. In which case, it must be interpreted. Thus, one could say it is merely a suggestion, to be used sparingly. Exemplary Bible quoting though. Please don't think this is my opinion just because this is the generally accepted political view. Actually, I developed this outlook as a child, reading articles in Christian books, magazines, and even a newspaper article which, though not always explicitly, asserted such ideas. I had no clue there was a ton of political roaring against this at the time, I instinctively felt it wrong. Now, you have really made me think. Don't get me wrong. I think you MAY be right. At least partly right. But, sorry, you fail to entirely convince.
On to the heart of the conflict: Emily.
I am flattered by your remarks about me having a unique ability. I would probably have just yelled "AWFUL TASTE!" You can be quite tactful. But my "unique" ability, coincidentally, is shared by all three of my sibs. (Oh, while I was writing my earlier post, my bro read it over my shoulder, and said, "What kind of idiot wouldn't like Emily?" Emily may have a cartoon voice. So does Uncle Scrooge, but his actor did Jack Allen. And, incidentally, I'm NUTS over Uncle Scrooge and his Ductales series.
Emily may annoy some people. But different things annoy different people, without much obvious logic to it. I am annoyed by woman laughing every time they see each other, many people are not annoyed by this. I am not annoyed by crumbs left in butter, many people are. Is Emily unlike a human? For someone who's not like a human, she's really worked her way into my heart. And, incidentally, it seems people would complain to Clubhouse magazine she has her own article, a story about her and Matthew, that appears in every issue, rather than reading it and praising it, if Emily wasn't identifiable. Sorry, but the large amount of AIO Message Board members who complain appear to be the minority, not the majority.
Good post, as always. Well, get on with it, TS! What's your retaliation??? I wanna see! I wanna see! Let the new war begin!

[Tea Ess]

Yes, I do appear to be taking this verse at face value. However, there is another side to the verse, 'Husbands, love your wives.' now, this verse is not referring to romantic love, but real love. Real love is not feeling, it is the continuous process of sacrificing your comfort and wants for someone else's, and it is this process which slowly brings people closer together. What I glean from these verse is that wives should let their husbands have the final word in decision making, but that husbands should be cherishing their wives and constantly sacrificing his wishes to help his wife with hers. The commands for each person are rather similar, each person should be Christ-like to their partner. However, when it comes to an important decision that affects others, the husband should carefully consider his wife's opinion, and make a decision that best benefits both his family and other people in the decision. So, really, the wife gives authority to her husband, who in turn uses it to make good decisions for the family. Let me also point out that C.S. Lewis believes that the wife is the custodian of the family, that she always does what is best for them. The husband is head because he considers other people in his decisions. The husband is not head because he is better, or smarter, but because of the kind of decisions he makes. In a sense, the wife is in charge of the decisions inside the home, and the husband in charge of decisions outside the home. When the decisions clash, one decision has to win. God chose the husband's, because his decision will work for others as well. I know I am butchering C.S. Lewis's point, but it was the best way I could thnk of to restate it.

As for Emly, either you have a rare genetic trait, or your siblings look up to you and follow your decisions. My younger siblings all think the same way about Emily that I do. I am severely bothered by crumbs in the butter. In a way, this relates to Emily. She is almost like a pat of delicious butter, but with several horrible crumbs stuck in her character. You don't seem to be bothered, but I am. I believe this is about the only difference between old and new Odyssey. A few of the characters are less relatable than the old ones, and this makes it harder to see through the eyes of that character. I find it difficult to sympathize with Emily, mainly because I don't see anything we have in common, and also becuase she rarely feels sympathy for others. If she was carried away to Africa by a mangy baboon, I wouldn't pity her (maybe just a little), because she lacks what is, in my thoughts, real human nature. Her thought process works so differently from mine that I can't get in to her world. I do believe that this is fixable.

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

"I don't like her." "Emily is obnoxious and annoying." Well argued. Very well argued. So clever, 101. I see your point. Thank you, I see the light. (Boy, talk about being sarcastic.)

-- Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:58 pm --

*edit: Biblically speaking ,women are under zero obligation to submit to their husbands, except in the Old Testament... (Not: there's no reason to assume women are under zero obligation to submit to their husbands...)

Well, what else am I supposed to say? She's obnoxious and annoying. That's all there is to it! And boy, you guys make long comments!

[Pound Foolish]

A prompt reply, TS. Let's see. We do make long comments, 101. I apologize, but you are not required to read every word of them, after all, or any of them for that matter. A woman is more naturally focused on the family. A man is not, by extension, necessarily more considerate of others in general. In fact, it's a woman that is understanding of emotions and situations. And most domestic decisions deal more with the family than other people anyhow. I know that seems like very simple, almost childish logic, but it makes sense.
I'm not sure my fourteen year old bro likes Emily because I do, or does anything because I do for that matter. My siblings are all pretty free thinking... which I encourage, and kinda am myself, come to think of it, so maybe... But I'm getting off track. In any case, if I am so amazingly influential over my siblings, they are VERY observant of my thoughts, because I've never told them I like Emily. And I don't think I told Clubhouse Magazine, which, as I said, prints a whole story about her every issue, that I like her either. And, very well, you have your reasons for not liking Emily. The fact she is different from you doesn't make her stink. I'm sorry you cannot sympathize with her. Some can. Thus, she is not necessarily a weak character. We rarely see her feeling sorry for people. However, we rarely see her in a position to. And she does many kind things for people. In fact, all her episodes are her trying to solve a problem, at least PARTLY for others' benefit. When there's something bad going on, in fact, she wants to help, thus her Detective Agency. She is certainly an unusual person. But perhaps not as unbelievably un-developed, un-human, and hole filled as you seem to think. Oh, and I'm sorry crumbs in butter are so aggravating to you. Enjoyed your post! Any thoughts on mine?

[Tea Ess]

Well, it could still be a rare genetic trait. Actually, only 7% of communication is with words. Thus, you can communicate 93% of your feelings to your siblings without using words. Your siblings could easily pick up on your thoughts without you having to say them. As for free thinking, you are probably right with 14. However, how long ago did you first hear Emily? It is possible your first impressions of her could have made an impact on your siblings. Two of my siblings are extemely independent, but they are still influenced by my choices, consciously or unconsciously.

As for your statement on men and women, you are right. However, men also have less intense patriotism for their family, so they are generally more balanced when it comes to decision making outside of the home.

Clubhouse magazine is geared toward younger children, who tend to enjoy Emily more.

No, her being different from me does not make her weak. I thoroughly enjoy many characters who are different from myself. Her weakness lies in the fact that she follows her emotions and feelings without regard to others. She does help people find missing items, but I get the sense that she does this because of her love for detecting, and not for the love of helping other persons. Now, people have addressed her obtrusive nature, but she never shows any progress with it, or a personal appeal to God to help her change. There have been several episodes centered around this, but Emily always goes back to do the same thing. She never really learns from her mistakes, and even the episodes addressing this do not do so directly. In other words, I feel that we are constantly chasing the symptoms of a much deeper dilemma.

[Pound Foolish]

Well, we have had a good war, and you made many excellent points. I believe we are at the junction where we have said enough and must shake hands. We are about as close agreeing we ever shall. I concede Emily rarely feels empathy for people, apart from in When You're Right, You're Right. And, yes, Emily is in the detecting business because she likes it. As you saw, I put "partly" for others' benefit in capitals. And perhaps a male, in the family, should tend to have the power to make a final decision as long he exercises it only if it's really necessary, though I'm a guy, so I probably shouldn't make up my mind so easily about that in case I end up married. Though that's highly doubtful. You showed Emily has room to grow, something I failed to acknowledge. Oh, and when I last posted on here, I ignored your interpretation of CS Lewis, which was a valid and smart one. Please pardon me, I was tired at the time after a day of swimming and forgot. It was quite graceless of me. Oh, sorry if I came on too strong in any other way (again) and didn't notice. Okay, well, shake mental hands? I hope you didn't have anything requiring butter with your breakfast this morning. Thank you for all your thoughtfully crafted replies to my posts.

[Tea Ess]

I'll agree to a hand shake. It was quite enlightening to discuss Emily. It's good to know some people can appreciate her when I can't do that as well. Is quite all right, missing C.S. Lewis, I've missed points before as well. Thank you for your well positioned posts!


P.S. I look forward to the next time our paths cross...

[Pound Foolish]

Splendid! I appreciate it. And no, thank you. It's been stimulating and challenging. I have a great deal to think about, both with Emily and marriage more importantly.

[Wretched Sinner]

Lets debate Emily. Me and Creative Thinker 101 against Pound Foolish and SuzyLou. Anybody else can join in too. Lets start debating!

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

Augh! I declare war on Pound Foolish and suzylou!

Just kidding. But let's get real. The so called 'character' of Emily is annoying and obnoxious. That's all there is to say, PF. That's all there is to say. I don't go on and on with my points, but I'll say it one more time: Emily is obnoxious and annoying. And don't you argue with me, PF! You know, in your heart, that Emily is the worst current kid character. You're just kidding yourself. Obnoxiousness and annoyingness are reason enough to hate a character!

And I'm really glad you've set up this topic, Wooton. That felt so good.

[Wretched Sinner]

Yes. She is very annoying. She blackmails people and uses them. The only person she is not mean to is Buck and that's only because she loves him. I wish she'd just stop with all the lovey dovey stuff with Buck. It's plain that she loves him, but come on....shes something like 11 or 12. She's way to young to be getting all kissy with her boyfriends.

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

Yes. She is very annoying. She blackmails people and uses them. The only person she is not mean to is Buck and that's only because she loves him. I wish she'd just stop with all the lovey dovey stuff with Buck. It's plain that she loves him, but come on....shes something like 11 or 12. She's way to young to be getting all kiss with her boyfriends.

Actually, as far as we know, she never kissed or went out with Buck. I still think their relationship is a bit annoying and not healthy for Emily, but I just wanted to get my opinions voiced.

[Wretched Sinner]

Yes. She is very annoying. She blackmails people and uses them. The only person she is not mean to is Buck and that's only because she loves him. I wish she'd just stop with all the lovey dovey stuff with Buck. It's plain that she loves him, but come on....shes something like 11 or 12. She's way to young to be getting all kiss with her boyfriends.

Actually, as far as we know, she never kissed or went out with Buck. I still think their relationship is a bit annoying and not healthy for Emily, but I just wanted to get my opinions voiced.

Ya, but I'll bet if they knew each other longer they would have kissed and gone out.

[Pound Foolish]

My, you two seem to be enjoying this. Well, declare your lack of taste all you like, it just makes you look unintelligent. Oh, your criticisms of Emily are deep and probing and profound, as always. You said she is "annoying" and that she's "annoying" and that she's "annoying"... I'm staggered. I feel so defeated by your mountain of reason. And she loves Buck. SO? People fall in love. It has nothing to do with actual compatibility. Buck would've had to wait if he wanted do anything with Emily without looking like a total creep. Kissing is a bit you-know-what-ual. But, come one, for one thing, we don't know for sure if he wasn't just using Emily. And why are you guys complaining about something that made Emily look more human?

-- Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:45 pm --

PS, Suzy, help! WE CAN BEAT THESE GUYS!!!!

[Suzy Lou Foolish]

Oh gosh, Pound Foolish! I didn't realize they actually started a war against us! Mr. Thinker, I never thought it'd come to this! *tears* But anyways, this is ridiculous. The only thing you guys can come up with is 'annoying'. Seriously, its starting to get...uh...annoying. Also, Wooton, nearly every 12 y/o girls can't help but get giddy when sweet, cute boys show up all the sudden. Its a part of life- trust me, I would know. Emily is a good character, if ya'll don't like her...then I'm sorry. Just act chill about it.

[Doll]

There are some parts of Emily's character that I like, and others that I don't. She can be "annoying",
(since you don't like that word, I have found some others: pesky, bothersome, galling, irritating, nettlesome, pestering, vexing.)

But, She is also cute and funny sometimes. I guess I am in the club of "not hating her, but she isn't my favorite."